Charles Crest Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
341399869
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3038303300
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Roman Catholic
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$576,066
Expenses
$631,653
Assets
$1,356,123
Liabilities
$2,453,699

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES ALEXANDER (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • MELISSA CLAYTON (VICE PRESIDENT (UNTIL 2/2025))
  • KASSIDI BOENING (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES ALEXANDER (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR): $272,883 total reported compensation
  • JOE ROSENBLUM (SECRETARY/DIRECTOR): $254,958 total reported compensation
  • CHAD PAYNE (TREASURER): $214,612 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Charles crest corporation, an Ohio not-for-profit corporation, was organized to construct, own and operate a 48-unit apartment community in rossford, Ohio, known as charles crest, pursuant to section 202 of the national housing act, as amended.

What it reported doing in 2025

Charles crest corporation was organized on june 21, 1983 as an Ohio non-stock, nonprofit corporation for the purpose of constructing and operating a rental housing project under section 202 of the national housing act. Such projects are regulated by hud as to rent charges and operating methods. The project consists of 48 units located in rossford, Ohio and is currently operating under the name of charles crest i.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 64% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 32
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.2%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -9.6%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.15; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.81; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33.4%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $614K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $273K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 505 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.